Is the church’s official stance pro-choice or pro-life? For most of my life, growing up, I would have said “pro-life.” In the 90s when the Clintons said that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” I realized that their stated “pro-choice” position was also consistent with the church’s official stance. Suddenly I became aware that there were many church members who agreed with the church’s stance and considered it to be a more pro-choice perspective.

The church opposes (and always has) elective abortion for “convenience,” outlining 3 areas of exception (rape or incest, health of mother, fatal birth defects). Each of these “exception” areas contains plenty of gray area into which reality will intrude, and ultimately, the church’s policy is to make the decision prayerfully and in conjunction with a competent physician. (It also advises that one’s bishop should be consulted, although there’s a big open space here for bishops with biases or minimal understanding of these complicated issues to muck things up). The word “convenience” is itself problematic, implying a flippancy that is probably absent from most abortion decisions, certainly from most LDS abortion decisions (and we are the only people at all bound to follow the Handbook guidelines, after all).

I did a post at By Common Consent discussing some of the theological implications of Mormon doctrine of the soul as well as quoting the Church Handbook. I also asked in that post whether it’s better for an unwanted pregnancy to result in diverting that spirit to a “wanted” pregnancy (through abortion) or whether it was better to force the mother who doesn’t want the child to endure the pregnancy and the ensuing parenthood, making an “unwanted pregnancy” an “unwanted child.” The scenario in which an unwanted pregnancy becomes a happy family is mostly a pleasant fiction we can believe from our comfortably middle class, drug- and abuse-free families with a built in support network. In today’s post I wanted to explore whether the church’s stance is actually pro-life or pro-choice.

Given the recent attacks on Roe v. Wade, including Alabama’s anti-abortion bill that attempts to outlaw all abortion except when the mother’s life is in jeopardy (no exceptions for rape or incest), suddenly, the church’s position is looking more pro-choice than where the rest of the GOP is shifting. Something similar happened when the GOP took what many considered Draconian measures to curb immigration; the church’s stance was more moderate than the party’s.

Mitt Romney came out with a statement that matches the church’s position, stating: “I don’t support the Alabama law. I believe that there ought to be exceptions. I’m pro-life, but there ought to be exceptions for rape and incest and where the life of the mother is at risk.” The other exception the church makes that he didn’t mention is when the fetus has severe birth defects that will make its life short and painful, non-viable in a reasonable sense of the term. While Mitt claims he is pro-life, he finds it necessary to caveat that with a “but” and a list of exceptions.

That’s similar to saying (as I used to say in my younger days): “I’m pro-choice prior to conception.” There’s a whole lot not being said in saying that. If conception occurs without consent, then it’s not been chosen. Women don’t abort pregnancies they intended–unless there are severe health risks to themselves or the fetus. What about areas where consent and intent don’t match? What about birth control failures? What about coerced consent? [1] What about mothers living in poverty who can’t afford to go through a pregnancy safely? What about those in abusive situations or addicted to drugs that are harmful (but not fatal) to the fetus?

Alyssa Milano has called for a “sex strike” while abortion rights are under siege, and she has a point. Women don’t require penetrative sex to experience sexual pleasure. In fact, only a third of women are capable of sexual climax during intercourse (as opposed to so-called foreplay–it’s obvious which sex is naming these terms). Since pregnancy is the result of penetrative sex, which is designed for male pleasure, it is unfair that only women bear the consequences of unwanted conception. If we want to prevent unwanted pregnancy, we could just eliminate penetrative sex to level the playing field.

But, of course, thanks to male wheedling, that’s probably impractical across the board, and our church is actually sex-positive (within marriage anyway).[2] So let’s talk about birth control, and then more specifically, birth control failures. If you want to prevent abortion, you need to grant easy access to birth control (ideally free) and the sex education to know how to use it. (Male unwillingness to take responsibility for birth control is a whole ‘nother post done better at this link). But sometimes it will fail. For example, birth control pills can be rendered temporarily ineffective if the mother takes antibiotics. And of course, some women experience severe symptoms from birth control. It works when it works, and unlike some of our conservative interfaith co-politicos (not mine personally, but the church’s), our church doesn’t ban birth control, leaving it up to couples to decide how to handle family planning. Unlike Justice Clarence Thomas’s preference, we recognize birth control as a valid choice couples can make. Married sex doesn’t have to be procreative.

A good friend of mine used to joke that they used two forms of birth control to prevent pregnancy: abstinence and condoms. Certainly married Mormon couples, whether pro-choice or pro-life, are unlikely candidates for elective abortion for “convenience.” They are also less likely candidates for abortion due to exigent circumstances like drug addiction, lack of economic means to support self or child (the church sometimes steps in to help where governments and families fail), and while domestic abuse occurs within marriages of all denominations, it’s very hard to get people to admit it due to the perils involved. When I was growing up, I had a hard time imagining the lives of people who are living so close to the poverty line or with drug or alcohol addictions would imperil their health or cause birth defects if they became pregnant. As an adult, I am more aware of the variety of situations in which women live, into which volatile mix unwanted and unsupported children are added. Is terminating that pregnancy for “convenience” or due to perilous circumstances or simply somewhere in between? Regardless, those individuals exist. An unwanted pregnancy can ruin an already shaky life.

The pro-life movement has a credibility issue when conservatives are seen having a poor track record on issues that would reduce unwanted pregnancy:

Listening to and believing women

Protecting victims of rape or incest

Punishing perpetrators of incest or rape

Promoting free contraception

Promoting sex education

Reducing income inequality

Providing a better safety / support network for those most at risk

Eliminating sex discrimination in the workplace

Parental leave policies

Women’s health coverage for birth control

How does the church fare on these issues? Unfortunately, not great on most of them, but change may be in the wind. The recent Title IX changes at BYU in response to the Rape Scandal (in which students who were sexually assaulted were referred to the Honor Code Office and threatened with discipline and expulsion) indicates an improved understanding, albeit achieved under duress. More could be done by taking steps to eradicate the sex discrimination in BYU and other church organizations’ hiring and benefits practices. More could be done by Mormons in government improving sex education in schools and providing healthcare coverage for birth control. Those steps would benefit members of the church.

But eliminating abortion beyond the borders of church membership, if it is to be a godly, humane solution, can’t ruin the lives of already vulnerable women in the process. It needs to include providing better financial resources and a better safety network for women who are at risk. It needs to aim to eliminate the great differences in access to affordable health care. It needs to reduce the fact that poverty skews female (a fact exacerbated by unwanted pregnancy). It needs to refuse to put women on trial for making difficult decisions, and it needs to respect that only women can make this decision ultimately–and give them the tools to make the best decisions possible.

The church institution has been mostly silent about this recent debate. The topic has been brought up less often in General Conference, perhaps due to the dramatic drop in abortions in this country, or perhaps because Roe v. Wade has until very recently been largely a settled matter.[3] Perhaps it simply feels that the policy is still the ideal, and it’s not necessary to impose church policy on a non-LDS population.

The current legal landscape says that the state cannot place an undue burden on women in requiring them to justify their decision to abort a fetus before the viable stage (usually around 20 weeks). Church policy is stricter than this in stating that even in the exceptional circumstances listed, the persons (not just the woman) responsible should consult with their bishop and also receive divine confirmation through prayer. In giving equal weight to a (possibly abusive) husband and a (likely uneducated and unimpacted) bishop, a woman in the church may have an undue burden to justify her decision. Doctors, even competent ones, may disagree about the health risks of a pregnancy and about the health risks to the fetus.

Resorting to prayerful confirmation seems like a useful solution for women seeking to make a very difficult decision given the potential for mistakes, biases, and misinformation. But never should her prayerfully confirmed choice be in a position to be overridden by her husband, bishop or doctor. Which makes me, oddly, both pro-choice and (mostly) aligned with the church’s statement (although I wouldn’t apply it to women outside the church).

What changes, if any, would you propose to the church’s policy statement on abortion?

Do you think the church is pro-life or pro-choice or somewhere in between? Defend your answer.

Do you think the church’s policy is clearly understood by the majority of church members and bishops? If not, what misunderstandings do you see?

Discuss.

[1] Which is not consent, IMO, but many GOP legislators, particularly those who will never be pregnant, would disagree.

[2] We’re so sex positive our early leaders were the opposite of a celibate clergy, requiring multiple wives per church leader.

[3] Even Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are on record as uninterested in overturning precedent in this matter.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Published by hawkgrrrl

Hawkgrrrl has been blogging since March 2008, publishing hundreds of opinion pieces. She is a wife and mother of three, a business executive, a returned missionary, and is active in her LDS ward. She likes oil painting, reading, theater, and international travel.
View all posts by hawkgrrrl

37 thoughts on “Pro-Choice or Pro-Life”

The necessary theological support for a strong religious anti-abortion position would be that the spirit enters the body at conception or shortly thereafter. If your religious view is that the spirit enters at quickening or at the judicially set 20 weeks or shortly before birth or right at birth, then an abortion before those milestones stands on a different moral footing than abortion after those milestones. But the Church does not have a specific doctrine stating when the spirit enters. Which is problematic.

I’m thinking a woman going to her bishop about an unwanted pregnancy to talk about an elective abortion that the woman has prayerfully determined is the proper thing to do is a lot like a “faith crisis” person going to their bishop: the bishop might create real problems for you, or might do nothing but offer mild moral support, but can’t do anything positive to help you. So what’s the point of going to the bishop if they can’t really help but they might cause a great deal of trouble? The Church backed out of the birth control decision a generation ago. Perhaps they are quietly backing out of the abortion decision as well. Honestly, I have never heard any story, anecdotal or otherwise, about discipline being imposed on an LDS woman or couple because of an abortion. Which leads me to suspect that at this point abortion discipline happens rarely, if at all, despite the fairly strong language in the Handbook. Perhaps another example of revelation from below.

If a woman does not regularly experience orgasm during penetrative sex, I beleive that is more a reflection poor and/or self centered technique on the man’s part. I think the stated statistic bears this out.

With respect to the main point of the OP, the people who tend to be the most politically engaged (i.e. give money to politicians and put bumper stickers on their cars) tend to be the most politically extreme. Unfortunately, this tends to drive politicians to the extremes to keep the money flowing.

Dave B, I confess I don’t see how that follows. I have a post going through that, but one could argue it is deeply wrong even if the spirit isn’t essentially united to the body yet. It’s true that most pro-life arguments assume the fetus is fully a human being of worth equal to a birthed baby. However a Mormon could easily say that the fetus is a part of the spirit and theirs in an essential way without it being fully them as the “life begins at conception” crowd asserts. In that case abortion is akin to cutting an arm off of a baby but not akin to murder. We think dismembering innocent people extremely wrong and think it should be illegal without thinking it murder. We think that violence against innocent people is wrong even if eventually they physically heal (in this case perhaps get a different body)

There’s also an argument from ignorance one can make. It’s analogous to the case of people out shooting and wanting to shoot at an abandoned building. They don’t know if someone is inside the building. If they shoot, not knowing, it might not be murder in the first degree, but it would be involuntary manslaughter since they should have found out before they shot the building. In the analogy we don’t know when the spirit is essentially tied to the body, so since we *might* be killing a full human being we shouldn’t do it. If we do it, it might not be murder but it might be from God’s perspective involuntary manslaughter and thus still extremely seriously.

I don’t think most unquestioning members think about the details of abortion policy. Opposing abortion is part of a set of ultra conservative policies like anti gay marriage, anti euthanasia, anti immigration, anti muslim, and opposing sex education in school, that they see as being an unquestioning member combined with being conservative which is also part of being an unquestioning member. And of course you should impose these on everyone else.

I am hoping the political advisers might question this package, and educate on the details, as you are. I think having political advisors might make it more acceptable to discuss politics in church more constructively.

I believe the church has got it pretty right now, that they no longer oppose birth control, but could do better on education, especially about consent, and abuse, and imposing your views on others which they have modeled very badly.

I think the church’s position as an organization is unintentionally pro-choice, but individuals in the church are by and large staunchly pro-life. I’ll explain.

The difference relies on who gets to decide. The church policy is not a legally binding rule, and allows for abortion under conditions (rape, mainly) which are best determined by the mother. To not allow for choice under such a policy, is to say that there is someone other than the pregnant woman who is better qualified to decide if she was assaulted, coerced, etc. And since the church’s official position is about the morality of abortion and not the legality, there should be no need to have a formal accusation of assault to justify the abortion. The only thing that makes sense, from a legal standpoint, but following the church’s policy, is to allow the woman to say she needs an abortion. The church’s position is a pro-choice position.

But most members, bishops, stake presidents, will not see things this way. Members tend to think that they can judge and decide what is right for someone else. This is also somewhat codified in church policy, which requires special authorization before baptizing someone who has had an abortion or funded one.

Members will also see the church’s policy as a pro-life position primarily because it so carefully spells out the idea that abortion should not be performed under conditions X, Y, and Z. Members typically infer from this policy that life is assumed to have started.

I forgot to include an observation that I have heard Mormon women say that they would be reluctant to have an abortion even if their life were in danger, and I am aware (third hand) of at least one women who did decline to have an abortion that the doctor recommended, and she nearly died in childbirth.

It’s an interesting discussion. Theologically one could argue that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka “mormons”) should be more pro-choice than atheists or even their fellow christians since most of the those who want abortions are probably not “celestial law-abiding, tithe-paying, temple attending people. Therefore, abortions would save the “unwanted child” from a non-covenant life and increase the probability of their exhalation by either a) the spirit did enter the body and so it was death before reaching age of accountability so automatically saved, or b) the spirit didn’t enter the body and so now that spirit can go to a “wanted child” where the probability of learning the “one and true gospel” would be higher. It seems that the only theological reason why Mormons should oppose abortion is due the concept of murder, but that’s the same dilemma that atheists face. But atheists have no way to consolidate the unborn. Of course there are different arguments to this, but in answer to your question IMO the church is more pro-choice than many groups.

On another note, however, it is noteworthy to consider that missionaries teach all the discussions and likely never teach the specifics on abortion. But come time for the baptismal interview by the district or zone leader they are asked if they have ever participated in an abortion. If they have, the leader must stop the interview, contact the mission president, and then the mission president must conduct the interview. See quote from PmyG.

“Have you ever participated in an abortion? A homosexual relationship? [Note: A person who
answers yes to either of these questions must be interviewed by the mission president
before being baptized.”

Over the years we have had plenty of anti-abortion protestors at General Conference time, indicating that these people at least perceive the Church’s position to be soft on abortion. I see the Church’s position as a pragmatic one as opposed to a strictly principled one. On such a difficult issue as this, I think pragmatism is probably a good approach.

Onandagus suggests “It seems that the only theological reason why Mormons should oppose abortion is due the concept of murder”

At risk of being myself wrong, it seems your understanding of Mormon theology has a big gap.. The “Plan of Salvation” is for pre-mortal spirits to be born, experience life and learn things from it, die and return to God and report. Clearly it is important for these spirits to experience mortality; Jesus, the son of God, also experienced mortality and I presume upon the necessity of that experience. There is a pretty good argument for God himself having experienced mortality.

At the very least an abortion thwarts the plan of God by denying the existence of a life. Reasons exist, but they should be weighty reasons and chosen quickly and without forcing non-participants to be party to abortion.

Angela, the info in your linked article should be common knowledge, but perhaps the fact that it isn’t is part if the problem.
Perhaps this is TMI, but after a year or so of marriage my wife told me she hadn’t experienced orgasm with me yet. It was important to me for her to do so so we went to marriage counseling, purchased some books and experimented with positions and techniques a bit. We eventually figured out what works best for her in order to climax. Sex, like all aspects of a good marriage, requires good communication, working together and a healthy dose of humility to achieve an optimal outcome. Oh, and a good sense of humor when things don’t go super smoothly helps too.

The Church’s official position could be described as pro-choice with caveats, or pro-life with exceptions. It’s nuanced, which is good because it allows each situation to be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis. In practice, though, most Church members in my immediate circle of influence parrot the conservative party line and take a strict pro-life position. My baby-boomer parents (who’s political values are consistent with people who watch hours of Fox News every day) still believe in the “convenience” trope, that all women who seek abortions are selfish and promiscuous. They want to universally outlaw abortions, but offer no solutions to addressing the social problems that make abortions necessary in the first place. Then they start making (false) comparisons to genocide and eugenics, which shuts down any chance of a productive conversation. It doesn’t help that my parents got married and started having kids shortly after Roe v. Wade was decided, after which productions of Saturday’s Warrior (which is absolutely unsubtle in it’s anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive messages) started making the rounds in LDS circles.

Regardless, I recommend the Church change their policy regarding discipline for Church members who participate in abortions. This is tantamount to a blanket restriction, as it unnecessarily punishes victims and their supporters, and tacitly discourages those even with qualified exceptions. In Utah and other areas of heavy Mormon concentration, this can also make it impossible to find a qualified abortion provider within reasonable driving distance. Even the kind friend who offers to drive the woman to Planned Parenthood is in danger of being disciplined. Again, we aren’t going to stop abortions by threatening to punish those who get them or provide them–this will only stigmatize it and push it underground.

Jack, nearly all pro-life proponents favor exceptions. Many pro-life proponents were rather shocked by Alabama’s law because it lacked exceptions typically accepted.

Geoff, a pro-life position really isn’t “ultra-conservative.” I think many pro-life proponents would actually be happy to have European status quo rules in the US. Libertine 1st trimester abortion and frequently banned in 2cd and 3rd trimester.

“The Church’s official position could be described as pro-choice with caveats, or pro-life with exceptions.”

I do not see how an honest reading of the Church’s position can conclude that it is “pro-choice with caveats.” I wrote the following comment in Clark’s recent abortion post in Times & Season’s:

The church’s position, as presented in both Handbook 2 and the “topics” page on abortion, is extremely pro-life. Getting an abortion is a violation of one of the most serious commandments we’ve been given: “thou shalt not… kill nor do anything like unto it.” Anyone who submits to an abortion, performs an abortion, arranges for an abortion, pays for an abortion, consents to an abortion, or even encourages an abortion is subject to church punishment, up to and including excommunication.

The only scenarios in which receiving an abortion may be justified are (1) when the pregnancy is the result of forcible rape or incest, (2) the life or health of the mother are in serious jeopardy, and (3) the child has severe defects that will not allow him/her to survive beyond birth. These scenarios do not automatically justify an abortion, and abortion should only be considered after consultation with ecclesiastical leaders.

Note that the aforementioned justifications do not include the age or viability of the child. An abortion performed in week 1 is as much a violation of the commandment to not “kill nor do anything like unto it” as an abortion performed in week 40.

Relatively few abortions are performed for the permissible reasons. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that these scenarios account for only 8% of abortions performed in the US. Data from Florida indicate that only 2% of abortions are performed for these reasons. In other words, between 92% and 98% of abortions performed in the US are unjustifiable. Members of the Church attempting to rationalize their support for liberal abortion laws on the basis that some abortions are justified must contend with the fact that of the 61 million abortions performed in the US since Roe, between 56 million and 60 million have been performed for unjustifiable reasons.

When it comes to theological questions regarding the union of body and spirit, the best we can do is plead ignorance. The Lord has not yet revealed that knowledge to us, but he has called prophets and apostles to lead his church and inspires them in their callings. Those men have, for generations, preached the depravity of abortion with a consistent and unified voice. We damn ourselves if we ignore their counsel.

Michae: “Clearly it is important for these spirits to experience mortality . . . At the very least an abortion thwarts the plan of God by denying the existence of a life” We don’t know (and have no official theological position on when the spirit enters the body. Personally, I don’t believe that occurs while it is in utero. By my view (which is just my opinion), a spirit whose intended body is aborted (or miscarried) simply goes to a viable body elsewhere. In this situation, abortion is killing (because the body was living tissue) but not murder (because the unborn is not yet a mortal person capable of living outside the mother, not yet possessing a spirit).

I don’t know how you could possibly explain the church as pro-choice. It fits the pro-life profile through and through. It allows exceptions in cases of rape and incest, but so do many self-identifying pro-lifers.

Utah abortion laws (heavily influenced by LDS beliefs/policies) have been creeping toward more restrictions. Most recently the prohibition against abortion in the case of a fetus with Down’s syndrome. Other things that have changed in recent years–the age of “viability has decreased from 22 weeks to 18 weeks. Additionally, there are 72 hr waits to obtain an abortion, and a law requiring pain medication after 20 weeks. I don’t expect the move toward more restrictions to stop.

On the other hand, I would point out the LDS policies regarding stillborn children. Stillborn children are not sealed to parents nor are they eligible for temple ordinances. They, may, however, appear on family genealogy charts.

I’ve often heard from fellow members that one of, if not the main reason, they are politically conservative or Republican is because of their objection to the pro-choice stance on abortion.

Lastly, we ignore the fact that a disproportionate number of women seeking abortions are those with higher rates of poverty. Additionally, at least 50 percent of women getting an abortion have at least 1 child. Conservatives often portray single poor women as just having babies so they can qualify for welfare, (which they want to eliminate or decrease) but then at the same time, they restrict their access to abortion.

I frankly don’t believe many in the pro-life group actually care about the well-being of children. They aren’t so much pro-life as they are
pro-chastity.

John W., I acknowledge that most people will agree with you. But I still think that the only legal framework that is compatible with the church’s official policy is a pro-choice framework. Otherwise you have a society where a woman who should be morally allowed to have an abortion must provide an affirmative defense that she was raped.

I think Roe v. Wade and the follow on case Planned Parenthood v. Casey establish a reasonable balance between adult women and unborn rights. What drives me bonkers is rabbid pro lifers who then advocate for reducing child welfare benefits in the same breath. If you are going to force a woman to give birth who otherwise wouldn’t, then you better be willing to pony up to help that child become a successful adult.

Michae, “The “Plan of Salvation” is for pre-mortal spirits to be born, experience life and learn things from it, die and return to God and report. Clearly it is important for these spirits to experience mortality…”

The theology is that 1) spirits need to receive the body and 2) we need to have mortal experience to grow and advance. However, the loop-hole for #2 is that D&C 137 states that “All children who die before the age of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom”. Therefore, if the spirit enters these bodies of the unborn child and so “receive their bodies”, and then they are aborted (i.e. die), then they are guaranteed celestial exaltation. If, however, the spirit doesn’t “receive their body” then the spirit would be sent to another body the corollary of which is discussed in my above comment.

Angela….Barbara Bush’s very thought out stance on abortion is a very good read and is available online. I love how it was left, and now she has passed on, with a note in the margin of “needs more thought”. I submit this as an older MORMON woman who learned ftom Joseph Smith to study it out in my own mind and make decisions for ME based on my own volition based on asking and seeking based on PERSONAL revelation!ally@

“The “Plan of Salvation” is for pre-mortal spirits to be born, experience life and learn things from it, die and return to God and report. Clearly it is important for these spirits to experience mortality…”

As I’ve read the various abortion discussions, one of the things that keeps hitting me is that humans seem to care much more than God does about a fetus reaching adulthood. I had 8 miscarriages, most of them very early on. And that’s not uncommon. Then you add in all the pregnancy/childhood deaths of history and the numbers are staggering. Having life experience just doesn’t seem to be one of God’s priorities in any practical sense.

This is an extraordinarily difficult issue morally (perhaps less so legally). But what I’m hung up on lately is this:

Can someone please explain to me how a 40-week-old fetus and a 40-week-old newborn are different in a morally relevant way? And since I can hear the grumbling already, let me point out that several philosophers and scholars share my inability to identify such a difference (Peter Singer among them – I didn’t bother with citation, but will if you’re skeptical). I am not asserting a position (that all abortion is infanticide, or the reverse). It’s the moral distinction between a fetus (legal non-person with no rights) and a newborn immediately after delivery (legal person with rights indistinguishable from mine) that has me bedeviled. I cannot imagine how a thing’s rights can depend so completely upon its position in space relative to another person’s body.

And to beat everyone to the punchline, yes, it is ironic that “Billy Possum” wrote this comment.

Billy: The most rational argument I can make for your question is “dependency”. The fetus depends 100 percent, moment by moment, for its life from its mother. But once born, it breathes on its own and can live for at least a day or two without mother, and for a normal lifespan if someone else takes care of it until maturity.

That’s the factual difference. Morality does not exist until someone gives it existence. There is no universal morality. Many people tend to have a self-serving sense of morality.

I am “pro choice” insofar that I think everyone’s choice is important (father, mother, child, state); and with a typical abortion, everyone’s choice is ignored save only the choice of the mother.

ReTx writes “humans seem to care much more than God does about a fetus reaching adulthood.”

Likely so. Mortal life is inconsequential to an immortal God. Mortality is like your teenager going to a movie; she goes out and a few hours later comes back, maybe a bit wiser having learned something from the movie. Does it benefit YOU that she went to a movie? Probably not. But it may benefit your daughter, perhaps dramatically so.

God’s plans cannot be thwarted, but yours can be. Would God commit a spirit to a body that would be miscarried or aborted? Maybe, but if so, it will have been chosen with that outcome already in mind. That doesn’t let anyone off the hook but might alleviate some guilt.

It is interesting to me the forces that were aligned against my daughter being born, including forces against her being conceived in the first place. I am permitted to see only that her existence is sufficient to bring to pass something important. There is nothing to do or be; it is inevitable if she lives, and so she does. I am a “co-creator” not just a “pro-creator” in the grand scheme.

“Can someone please explain to me how a 40-week-old fetus and a 40-week-old newborn are different in a morally relevant way? ”

I’m honestly not sure if this is a serious question, but I’ll endeavor to treat it like one.

In addition to the dependency that Michael 2 discusses, there is the fact that the life of the fetus causes harm to the mother. Most mother’s are willing to undergo that harm, but it doesn’t change the fact that in order for the fetus to live the mother must risk her own health either through labor and delivery or surgery. Luckily, modern medicine makes these things relatively safe, but not harmless.

A 40 week old baby, in the other hand, can be adopted or made a ward of the state, usually without performing surgery on a third party.

Billy Possum: Nobody’s aborting 40 week old fetuses. 92% of abortions are WELL before viability, before 14 weeks. There is no 14 week old fetus that is viable outside of the mother’s body. 98% are before 20 weeks, and at least when I was having my kids, the doctors all stated that 24-27 weeks was about the earliest that a fetus could survive a premature separation from the mother (birth). Any abortions after about 20 weeks are usually because the fetus is either dead or the mother will die if the pregnancy continues.

So what does a 40 week old fetus have to do with a 40 week old baby? Neither one is at risk of abortion. 38-40 weeks is the normal full term for pregnancy. The moral difference between the two is moot since neither is going to be aborted.

In addition to what others have said, there is no such thing as an abortion at 40 weeks (or really any time post-viability). At that point, it is a c-section or induced delivery and then keeping a viable baby alive.

Once a viable fetus is delivered by one of those means, it has the same full autonomy and right to life as the mother. Emotional appeals to a viable fetus being aborted are irrational and lose sight of the real issue in the pro-life/pro-choice debate, which is the mother’s consent to a pregnancy.

Most men have a limited/poor understanding and knowledge regarding women’s health issues, especially when it comes to reproduction. Women primarily bear the physical, mental, emotional and economic costs of pregnancy and childbirth. Therefore, they should be the ones developing and voting on any guidelines or limitations.

Perhaps we should develop laws to punish the man who impregnated a woman seeking an abortion?

Michael 2: “with a typical abortion, everyone’s choice is ignored save only the choice of the mother.” Everyone choice to make the woman endure an unwanted pregnancy that will have health and economic implications that she alone will bear? Just who else should get a say in that? And as pointed out already, men are choosing to behave irresponsibly by pushing for unprotected penetrative sex which is not designed for female pleasure anyway (or conversely leaving all the birth control including expense and side effects up to the woman). The man is clearly making lots of choices already here. As I was told by a man in my ward when I asked how the pregnancy (his wife’s) was going, he glibly said, “My part was great. Only about 15 minutes. Her part’s not quite as much fun.” We were at church, people. And I’m not sure he should be bragging about the 15 minutes.

Rockwell, Doubting Tom: This isn’t likely to work (alas, the internet), but I ask that you re-read my question, with intellectual charity, and then think about whether it was “serious,” or rather an “emotional appeal[].” Keep in mind that I emphasized that I was not taking a position on the issue, but was posing a genuine question that troubles me personally. As corroborating evidence, here are others (with more cred than anyone here, including me) who have taken this question seriously enough to publish their explorations:

Professional ethicists are not in the business of raising non-serious questions (and the Journal of Medical Ethics does not publish non-serious articles). I know a serious ethical issue when I see one. (I’ve studied ethics at the undergraduate and graduate levels; for the legal aspects of this issue, I’ve got a degree from a T14 law school that shall remain unnamed. Read: I’m not (usually) an idiot). Aside from all that, if you’ll think through the implications of (even hypothetical) near-term abortion, the seriousness of this issue is self-evident (see, in part, my response to Angela C below).

That’s my case for the seriousness of this issue; what’s yours for the opposite?

Angela C: Thank you for taking my question seriously. I agree that the problem I raise is very likely only hypothetical, with virtually all abortions occurring much earlier than 40 weeks. But my hang-up is that at least the U.S. Supreme Court (including some very conservative, pro-life justices) refuses to accord the legal status of “person” to even a 40-week old fetus. Thus, hypothetically, at least, *if *a state permitted an abortion (instead of a delivery) at 40 weeks, the U.S. Constitution would have no objection. This is all relevant to a non-hypothetical question: If a 40-week old fetus is morally equivalent to a newborn, at what earlier gestational age does that equivalence cease? I understand the answer based on viability – it’s just not persuasive to me (considering that, for example, some newborns remain entirely dependent upon intensive parental care, perhaps for years). But as I say, thank you for seriously engaging.

Thanks for responding, Billy Possum, I now rest assured that your question was in earnest, and I perhaps should not have implied that it might not be. I hope to be able to read through your links later.

When I said your question might not be serious, what I meant was that you might not be wanting to get an answer. A lot of time when people say, “explain to me the difference between X and Y” what they really mean is “X and Y are not different.” If I was certain that your question was rhetorical in nature, I would not have responded to it.

“That’s my case for the seriousness of this issue; what’s yours for the opposite?”

I’ve tried above to acknowledge that you did not treat the issue trivially, and I’ve explained what I meant by the possibility of the your question not being serious. This other question of yours, well it seems like a rhetorical question of the type I referred to earlier. I’m not going to address it.

Congratulations on your law degree and other education. I am a mere amateur.